From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY: n_gsm, fix false positive WARN_ON
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Message-Id: <20160301050124.GA19068@kroah.com>
References: <CACT4Y+bHQbAB68VFi7Romcs-Z9ZW3kQRvcq+BvHH1oa5NcAdLA@mail.gmail.com> <1448384067-27300-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <56555613.1040502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <565585B9.4040706@suse.cz> <56558E48.3020604@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CACT4Y+bdzX213CJfGH0WYamOYmaNjrUtOaF6HLwtZ=vHHq=QQA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+bdzX213CJfGH0WYamOYmaNjrUtOaF6HLwtZ=vHHq=QQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 05:01:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:16:15PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:32 AM, xinhui <xinhui@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > hi, Jiri
> >
> > On 2015/11/25 17:56, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11/25/2015, 07:32 AM, xinhui wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      This warning should blame on commit 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a
> >>> memory leak in gsmld_open()").
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, yes, I messed up the "Fixes" line then. It should write:
> >> Fixes: 5a640967 ("tty/n_gsm.c: fix a memory leak in gsmld_open()")
> >>
> > that's Okay. :)
> >
> >>> I have one confusion. As there is field gsm->num to store the index of
> >>> gsm_mux[]. so in gsm_cleanup_mux(), why we still use for-loop to find
> >>> this mux?
> >>>
> >>> In error handle path, for example, the call trace in this patch, as we
> >>> failed to activate it and the
> >>> gsm->num is invalid(and the value is 0). we can just modify the codes
> >>> like below:
> >>>
> >>> if(gsm_mux[gsm->num] == gsm)
> >>> ....other work
> >>> else
> >>>      return;
> >>>
> >>> I think it would work, and the logic is correct. Or I just miss
> >>> something important?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yup, it looks like a cleanup. Could you prepare a separate patch for that?
> >>
> > yes, I will do that :)
> >
> >> Something like this:
> >>          /* open failed before registering => nothing to do */
> >>          if (gsm_mux[gsm->num] != gsm)
> >>                return;
> >>          spin_lock(&gsm_mux_lock);
> >>          gsm_mux[gsm->num] = NULL;
> >>          spin_unlock(&gsm_mux_lock);
> >>
> > looks pretty good, thanks.
> 
> 
> This is still not merged and fires regularly for me. Can we please merge it?

merge what?  I don't see any patch here or in my queue for this :(